Apr

28

More Russia/Ukraine Sanctions Released; Gazprom Still Safe For the Moment

Posted by at 10:13 am on April 28, 2014
Category: Russia Designations

The White House just released the latest round of Russia/Ukraine sanctions.  Despite much speculation, Gazprom still not on the list, likely because of collateral casualties such a sanction would impose on other non-Russian businesses.  Here’s the new list.

BELAVENCEV, Oleg Evgenyevich (a.k.a. BELAVENTSEV, Oleg); DOB 15 Sep 1949; Russian Presidential Envoy to the Crimean District; Member of the Russian Security Council (individual) [UKRAINE2].

CHEMEZOV, Sergei (a.k.a. CHEMEZOV, Sergey Viktorovich); DOB 20 Aug 1952; POB Cheremkhovo, Irkutsk, Russia (individual) [UKRAINE2].

KOZAK, Dmitry; DOB 07 Nov 1958; POB Kirovograd, Ukraine; Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation (individual) [UKRAINE2].

MUROV, Evgeniy Alekseyevich (a.k.a. MUROV, Evgeny; a.k.a. MUROV, Yevgeniy; a.k.a. MUROV, Yevgeny); DOB 18 Nov 1945; POB Zvenigorod, Moscow, Russia; Director of the Federal Protective Service of the Russian Federation; Army General (individual) [UKRAINE2].

PUSHKOV, Aleksei Konstantinovich (a.k.a. PUSHKOV, Alexei); DOB 10 Aug 1954; Chairman of State Duma Committee on International Affairs (individual) [UKRAINE2].

SECHIN, Igor; DOB 07 Sep 1960; POB St. Petersburg, Russia (individual) [UKRAINE2].

VOLODIN, Vyacheslav; DOB 04 Feb 1964; POB Alexeyevka, Khvalynsk district, Saratov, Russia; First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office (individual) [UKRAINE2].

The following entities have been added to OFAC’s SDN List:

AQUANIKA (a.k.a. AQUANIKA LLC; a.k.a. LLC RUSSKOYE VREMYA; a.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU RUSSKOE VREMYA; a.k.a. RUSSKOE VREMYA OOO; a.k.a. RUSSKOYE VREMYA LLC), 47A, Sevastopolskiy Ave., of. 304, Moscow 117186, Russia; 1/2 Rodnikovaya ul., Savasleika s., Kulebakski raion, Nizhegorodskaya oblast 607007, Russia; Website http://www.aquanika.com; alt. Website http://aquanikacompany.ru; Email Address [email protected]; Registration ID 1075247000036 [UKRAINE2].

AVIA GROUP LLC (a.k.a. AVIA GROUP LTD), Terminal Aeroport Sheremetyevo Khimki, 141400 Moskovskaya obl., Russia; Website http://www.avia-group.su/ [UKRAINE2].

AVIA GROUP NORD LLC, 17 A, Stratoyava St., Saint Petersburg, Russia; Website http://www.ag-nord.ru [UKRAINE2].

CJSC ZEST (a.k.a. ZEST LEASING), pr. Medikov 5, of. 301, St. Petersburg, Russia; 2 Liter a Pl. Rastrelli, St. Petersburg 191124, Russia; Website http://www.zest-leasing.ru; Registration ID 1027809190507; Government Gazette Number 44323193 [UKRAINE2].

INVESTCAPITALBANK (a.k.a. INVESTKAPITALBANK; a.k.a. OJSC INVESTCAPITALBANK; a.k.a. OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY INVESTCAPITALBANK), 100/1, Dostoevskogo Street, Ufa, Bashkortostan Republic 450077, Russia; SWIFT/BIC INAKRU41; Website http://www.investcapitalbank.ru; License 2377 [UKRAINE2].

JSB SOBINBANK (a.k.a. SOBINBANK), 15 Korp. 56 D. 4 Etazh ul. Rochdelskaya, Moscow 123022, Russia; 15/56 Rochdelskaya Street, Moscow 123022, Russia; SWIFT/BIC SBBARUMM; Website http://www.sobinbank.ru; Registration ID 1027739051009; Government Gazette Number 09610355 [UKRAINE2].

SAKHATRANS LLC (a.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU SAKHA (YAKUTSKAYA) TRANSPORTNAYA KOMPANIYA; a.k.a. SAKHATRANS OOO), 14 ul. Molodezhnaya Rabochi Pos. Vanino, 682860 Vaninski, Raion Khabarovski Krai, Russia [UKRAINE2].

SMP BANK (a.k.a. BANK SEVERNY MORSKOY PUT; a.k.a. SMP BANK OPEN JOINT-STOCK COMPANY), 71/11 Sadovnicheskaya Street, Moscow 115035, Russia; SWIFT/BIC SMBKRUMM; Website www.smpbank.ru; Email Address [email protected] [UKRAINE2].

STROYGAZMONTAZH (a.k.a. LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY STROYGAZMONTAZH; a.k.a. STROYGAZMONTAZH CORPORATION; a.k.a. “SGM”), 53 prospekt Vernadskogo, Moscow 119415, Russia; Website www.ooosgm.com; alt. Website www.ooosgm.ru; Email Address [email protected] [UKRAINE2].

STROYTRANSGAZ GROUP (a.k.a. STROYTRANSGAZ; a.k.a. “STG GROUP”), 3 Begovaya Street, Building #1, Moscow 125284, Russia; Website www.stroytransgaz.ru [UKRAINE2].

STROYTRANSGAZ HOLDING (a.k.a. STG HOLDING LIMITED; a.k.a. STG HOLDINGS LIMITED; a.k.a. STROYTRANSGAZ HOLDING LIMITED; a.k.a. “STGH”), 33 Stasinou Street, Office 2 2003, Nicosia Strovolos, Cyprus [UKRAINE2].

STROYTRANSGAZ LLC (a.k.a. OOO STROYTRANSGAZ), House 65, Novocheremushkinskaya, Moscow 117418, Russia [UKRAINE2].

STROYTRANSGAZ OJSC (a.k.a. OAO STROYTRANSGAZ), House 58, Novocheremushkinskaya St., Moscow 117418, Russia [UKRAINE2].

STROYTRANSGAZ-M LLC, 26th Meeting of the Communist Party Street, House 2V, Novy Urengoy, Tyumenskaya Oblast, Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Region 629305, Russia [UKRAINE2].

THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY INVESTMENT COMPANY ABROS (a.k.a. LLC IC ABROS), 2 Liter a Pl. Rastrelli, St. Petersburg 191124, Russia; Government Gazette Number 72426791; Telephone: 7812 3358979 [UKRAINE2].

TRANSOIL (a.k.a. LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TRANSOIL; f.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S ORGANICHERNNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU TRANSOIL; a.k.a. TRANSOIL LLC; a.k.a. TRANSOYL SNG LTD.), 18A Petrogradskaya nab., St. Petersburg 197046, Russia; Website http://www.transoil-spb.ru; alt. Website http://transoil.com; Email Address [email protected]; Registration ID 1037835069986 [UKRAINE2].

VOLGA GROUP (a.k.a. VOLGA GROUP INVESTMENTS; f.k.a. VOLGA RESOURCES; f.k.a. VOLGA RESOURCES GROUP), 3, rue de la Reine L-2418, Luxembourg; Russia [UKRAINE2].

Permalink Comments (1)



Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


Apr

23

Stuck Between a Rock and an OFAC Place

Posted by at 9:40 pm on April 23, 2014
Category: Cuba Sanctions • OFAC

Carlson Wagonlit US HQ via http://careers.carlsonwagonlit.com/jc/external/en/global/meetUs/Locations-Country-DetailPages/USA-Pages/USA_overview.html [Fair Use]Last week the Office of Foreign Assets Control announced that it whacked Carlson Wagonlit with a massive $5,990,490 fine for doing business in Europe as an American. Specifically, the massive fine was levied because Carlson was involved in arranging travel for Europeans to Cuba. Carlson became subject to U.S. sanctions on Cuba in 2006 when French hotel chain Accor sold its 50 percent stake in Carlson Wagonlit to Carlson and JPMorgan Chase, resulting in control of Carlson Wagonlit by U.S. companies.

In justifying the massive fine OFAC tut-tuts that Carlson Wagonlit was a sophisticated international company that processed Cuba travel for “four years before recognizing that it was subject to U.S. jurisdiction” and that it had either no compliance program or an “inadequate” one. Of course, OFAC omits from its chastisement of Carlson Wagonlit one significant fact: the 900-pound E.U. Council Regulation that made it illegal for Carlson Wagonlit to refuse to book travel to Cuba

In essence, and as I’ve said before, OFAC’s enforcement of the Cuba Sanctions against U.S. companies in Europe in these circumstances is tantamount to making it illegal for American companies to do business in Europe. This is particularly true for travel companies which simply cannot avoid being requested to book travel for Cuba. If the Company refuses, it violates E.U. law; if it complies, it violates U.S. laws. Sanctioned if you do; sanctioned if you don’t.

Permalink Comments (3)



Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


Apr

21

Oh, The Errors You’ll Make!

Posted by at 8:04 am on April 21, 2014
Category: General

By Thomas Erdbrink/The New York Time via http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/world/middleeast/mystery-shrouds-american-plane-at-tehran-airport.html [Fair Use - Commentary on News Story Using Picture]Yesterday the New York Times followed up on its article about the mysterious U.S. plane seen on the runway of an airport in Tehran. According to the follow-up article, the plane was leased by the Bank of Utah by a Ghanaian mining company owned by a brother of Ghana’s president. Naturally, this story was an opportunity for the New York Times to quietly correct the mistake we pointed out in the first article but to go on and make yet another mistake about U.S. sanctions laws. All the news that fits to mess up could be the new slogan for the Times.

As we pointed out in our post on the first article, the Times mistakenly claimed that a license from the Department of Commerce was required for the plane to land in Iran. In the latest story, and without acknowledging the previous error, the Times gets this part right:

To travel to Iran, the aircraft would typically need a license from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, the primary enforcer of American sanctions against Iran.

(What do you want to bet they saw our post?)

Of course, fixing one mistake didn’t stop the Times from making a brand new, and even bigger, mistake:

While the Ghanaian company is not subject to the patchwork of sanction rules constricting trade between Iran and the United States, the Utah bank, based in Ogden, is bound by sanctions.

The Ghanaian company isn’t subject to U.S. sanctions? Really? Maybe Times reporters should, you know, pick up the phone and call a sanctions lawyer before opining incorrectly on the scope of U.S. sanctions against Iran. I mean, after all, that’s what that shiny little iPhone in your pocket is for.

Because the plane is classified as ECCN 9A991, it needs an OFAC license in order to be re-exported by a foreign person to Iran. That, after all, is the whole point of 31 C.F.R. § 560.205, which I’ll cite in full here for the benefit of the Times reporters who might not otherwise be able to find it on their own:

(a) Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to May 7, 1995, the reexportation from a third country, directly or indirectly, by a person other than a United States person, of any goods, technology, or services that have been exported from the United States is prohibited, if:

(1) Undertaken with knowledge or reason to know that the reexportation is intended specifically for Iran or the Government of Iran; and

(2) The exportation of such goods, technology, or services from the United States to Iran was subject to export license application requirements under any United States regulations in effect on May 6, 1995, or thereafter is made subject to such requirements imposed independently of this part (see §560.414).

https://www.exportlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/IRAN-master675.jpg

Permalink Comments (1)



Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


Apr

18

Oh, The Places You’ll Go!

Posted by at 3:25 pm on April 18, 2014
Category: BIS • Iran Sanctions • OFAC

By Alec Wilson [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/awilson154/12221595055/sizes/l
N604EP in Zurich last January (Alec Wilson via Flickr, CC-BY-SA-2.0)

According to an article in the New York Times, and a picture snapped by one of its reporters in Tehran, a U.S. registered corporate jet with a discreet U.S. flag painted on the tail and with the registration number N604EP was spotted three days ago on the runway of Mehrabad Airport in Tehran, Iran. At first, apparently not having seen the photographic evidence, Director General of Tehran’s Mehrabad Airport Nasrollah Mansouri Shirazi told the Tasnim News Agency, an IRGC-affiliated group, that no U.S. planes had landed at his airport. (Baghdad Bob is alive and well at the Mehrabad Airport!)

The appearance of the U.S. plane in Tehran has, of course, resulted in a whirlwind of speculation about what it is doing there. As the Times correctly points out, its unlikely to be a covert diplomatic mission what with the U.S. flag emblazoned on the tail and the jet sitting in full daylight in a spot where a reporter could snap a photograph. (Such trenchant observations are why the New York Times is, after all, the U.S. newspaper of record.)

The whole affair has the Bank of Utah, which owns the plane in trust for some shadowy and undisclosed investors, all flustered.

Brett King, one of its executives in Salt Lake City, said, “We have no idea why that plane was at that airport.

…

Mr. King, who helps run the bank’s trust services business, said the bank had no “operational control” or “financial exposure” to any of the planes.

…

For his part, Mr. King said Thursday in an interview that he was trying to get to the bottom of the aircraft’s presence in Tehran. “The Bank of Utah is very conservative, and located in the conservative state of Utah,” he said. “If there is any hint of illegal activity, we are going to find out and see whether we need to resign” as trustee.

If the jet was in Iran without authorization, the Bank, as the legal owner of the plane, is going to have a hard time trying to wash its hands of the matter simply by resigning as “trustee” and trying to walk away from the issue. It will certainly need to demonstrate to federal regulators that it took all necessary steps in its dealings with the mysterious owners to prevent them from flying the plane to embargoed destinations without authorization.

One final amusing note is that the New York Times cannot figure out which agency needed to authorize the plane to land in Iran:

Under United States law, any American aircraft would usually need prior approval from the [Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control] to go to Iran without violating a complicated patchwork of rules governing trade.

In the case of this particular aircraft, powered by engines made by General Electric, the Commerce Department typically would have to grant its own clearance for American-made parts to touch down on Iranian soil.”

Er, no, the license from OFAC would be enough. If the Times reporter spent a few moments with Google he would have easily found the Commerce Deparment saying this:

Although BIS maintains license requirements for Iran, OFAC is responsible for administering most Iran sanctions. You are not required to seek separate authorization from BIS to export or reexport an item subject to both BIS’s Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and OFAC’s Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR) (31 CFR Part 560). However, you will also violate the EAR if you do not obtain an OFAC authorization if one is required.

I guess the fact-checkers at the Gray Lady aren’t what they used to be. . . .

Permalink Comments (1)



Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


Apr

16

Music of My Hartwall Arena

Posted by at 10:29 pm on April 16, 2014
Category: OFAC • Russia Sanctions

By Paul Holloway from Birmingham, United Kingdom (The Hartwall Arena Uploaded by Fæ) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AThe_Hartwall_Arena_(100452288).jpgYesterday, my colleague George Murphy posted an analysis on the potential impact (or lack thereof) of the Russia/Ukraine sanctions on a series of concerts by U.S. artists such as Justin Timberlake at Hartwall Arena in Helsinki, Finland. The post noted that the performances would still go on despite the ownership interests by three newly-designated SDNs in Hartwall Arena: Boris and Arkady Rotenberg and Gennady Timchenko. The post speculated that this was because none of the three named individuals had a fifty percent interest or greater in the venue. Under current rules as interpreted by OFAC, a company would not be blocked even if owned entirely by blocked individuals if no single blocked individual owned 5o percent or more of the company.

That post generated an email to us from an official at Live Nation, the concert promoter for the events at Hartwall, taking issue with the post.

I wanted to reach out because there has been quite a bit of erroneous information out in the public domain about the ownership of the Helsinki venue. The shows are going to continue because the venue is not subject to the US sanctions, not “despite” the sanctions.

I replied that the post had said the concert would go on “despite” the ownership of the venue by the three SDNs, not “despite” the sanctions, a very different thing, particularly since the post speculated that the venue wasn’t subject to the sanctions due to the 50 percent rule.

This led to another response:

They do not own 100% of the venue, there several dozen owners. Based on the best information available to Live Nation they own 100% of an entity which owns only a minority interest in the venue itself, which is the reason the sanctions do not apply.

That was certainly not what numerous new sources (such as The Guardian) were reporting as to the ownership of Hartwall Arena, and the official did not respond to my request to document the assertion about the Rotenberg and Timchenko interests in Hartwall . I did a little digging myself and sent to the Live Nation official this presentation made by Roman Rotenberg, the son of Boris Rotenberg and chairman of the Hartwall Arena. That presentation contains a slide that helpfully diagrams the precise ownership of the Arena. It states that the “owners” of Hartwall Arena are Gennady Timchenko and “Rotenberg family via LÃ¥ngvik Capital.” The organizational diagram shows a “company based in Luxembourg” owned by Timchenko that owns 50 percent of Arena Events Oy that, in turns, owns the Hartwall Arena. It also shows that “Oy LÃ¥ngvik Capital Ltd (Finland)” — owned by the Rotenberg family — owns the other 50 percent of the Arena Events Oy.

If Live Nation is trying to assert that Arena Events only owns a minority interest in Hartwall Arena, that is not consistent with what Roman Rotenberg says. The organizational chart shows that Arena Events Oy owns Helsinki Halli Oy (Hartwall Arena) and owns 49% of Jokerit Hockey Club Oy, the company that owns the  hockey team based at Hartwall Arena. It is not clear why the chart would indicate the 49% minority interest in Jokerit but not a corresponding minority interest in Helsinki Halli Oy if, in fact, that was also a minority interest as the Live Nation official asserts.

I also checked the records relating to Arena Events Oy on the Finnish Trade Register which is the official source for corporate records maintained by the Government of Finland. Those records do not indicate the stock ownership of Arena Events Oy and, thus, nothing in those publicly available corporate records contradicts Roman Rotenberg’s charts and statements showing that Timchenko and the Rotenberg family each own 50 percent of Hartwall Arena.

This information, if true, raises the possibility that concerts by Americans at Hartwall Arena might be problematic. Timchenko’s ownership of the Luxembourg holding company would mean that this holding company is blocked, and the Luxembourg holding company’s 50 percent in Helsinki Halli would result in Helsinki Halli being blocked as well. If Helsinki Halli is blocked, no U.S. person or company can be involved in events there. Whether or not Oy LÃ¥ngvik Capital is blocked is not clear, since we don’t know the ownership interests of Boris and Arkady Rotenberg in that company, but this does not matter if Helsinki Halli is blocked by virtue of Timchenko’s 50 percent stake.

So if Justin Timberlake sings a few songs at Hartwall he better hope that Live Nation is right and Roman Rotenberg is wrong about the ownership of the concert venue. Otherwise, he may be the next Dennis Rodman.

Permalink Comments (7)



Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


« Previous posts | Next posts »